“Be your own critic,” Gulzar advises aspiring writers at ‘Jashn-e-rekhta’
"There is a pain of the society, of a career and money. I have to face several other issues, so don't expect from me the kind of love we shared earlier. Now, I don't have time to sit and text you anymore," he recited
New Delhi, Feb 18: On Friday, renowned Indian lyricist Gulzar advised budding Indian writers to be “their own critic”. He advised one can do this by imitating Mirza Ghalib’s practice of editing his own works.
He emphasised on ‘self-contemplation’ and ‘self-introspection’ for the betterment of one’s work, while speaking in a session titled “Hum Sooratgaar Kuch Khwaabon Ke”.
“Ghalib used to edit his own poems and often reject the works he did not like. It is important for poets and writers today to know their shortcomings, and be able to edit their own work as well as reject them if they are not up to their standards,” Gulzar said at the ongoing Urdu festival ‘Jashn-e-Rekhta’.
While conversing with renowned Urdu and Hindi screenwriter Javed Siddique, Gulzar reiterated the vitality and relevance of writers like Faiz Ahmed Faiz and Mir Taqi Mir, who were brought novelty in Urdu poetry.
Gulzar asserted that poetry is beyond manifesting grief, it should also touch the realm of “social consciousness”, while accentuating the contribution and vitality of Mir’s poetry in India’s freedom struggle.
NewsGrambrings to you latest new stories in India.
In the session, Gulzar recited one of Faiz’s couplets – ‘Maqaam Faiz koi raah me jacha hi nahi, jo ku-e-yaar se nikle to su-e-daar chale’, which losely translates to ‘No destination en route caught my fancy, as I left my beloved’s house, I went straight to the gallows’.
Later, the octogenarian writer took a dig on how love is expressed through messages and chats in the smartphone era, as he was asked to explain the meaning of another couplet ”Mujh se pehle si mohabbat mere mehboob na maang”, by path – breaking poet Faiz Ahmed.
“There is a pain of the society, of a career and money. I have to face several other issues, so don’t expect from me the kind of love we shared earlier. Now, I don’t have time to sit and text you anymore,” he recited.
Along with philosophers, tax lawyers and computer programmers, scientists are perceived as speaking in a language which is supposedly the same as that of common people, but scarcely intelligible to them. And then they use strange symbols, complicated equations, and considerable jargon to talk of “things” unlikely to affect an average person’s life or to be even seen without specialised equipment.
So can scientific writing in any way be even comparable to literature? Yes, for scientists, across various disciplines, are also dealing with the mysteries of life, the universe and everything else, and can express themselves on their subject in ways the most lyrical poet, the most imaginative novelist or the most incisive historian could well envy.
Be it those trying to discern the cosmos’ origin, matter’s structure, the bewildering development and processes of life, including by evolution (despite what some Indian ministers may think), the abundant marvels of nature (including, but beyond humans too), and so on, scientists have written about their work and findings in absorbing ways.
And in this, they have more to teach us about ourselves, our past and future, than any preacher, politician or philosopher ever could.
Let us take a selection from the last century, which was full of developments across all spheres of science.
And since our existence in terms of our position in the world and the universe is key, we can start with an English physicist, astronomer and mathematician placing things in perspective.
“… we attempt to discover the nature and purpose of the universe which surrounds our home in time and space. Our first impression is something akin to terror. We find the universe terrifying because of its vast meaningless distances, terrifying because of its inconceivably long vistas of time which dwarf human history to the twinkling of an eye, terrifying because of our extreme loneliness, and because of the material insignificance of our home in space — a millionth part of a grain of sand out of all the sea-sand in the world.
But above all else, we find the universe terrifying because it appears to be indifferent to life like our own; emotion, ambition and achievement, art and religion seem equally foreign to its plan,” wrote Sir James Hopwood Jeans (1877-1946) in “The Mysterious Universe” (1930).
Then, coming to humans, we cannot ignore evolution — and the contribution of Charles Darwin. Among the best to explain its significance is Helena Cronin (b. 1942), a philosopher of biology and co-director of the Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science and the Darwin Centre at the London School of Economics.
“We are all walking archives of ancestral wisdom. Our bodies and minds are live monuments to our forebears’ rare successes. This Darwin has taught us. The human eye, our brain, our instincts, are legacies of natural selection’s victories, embodiments of the cumulative experience of the past,” she says in the beginning of her “The Ant and the Peacock: Altruism and Sexual Selection from Darwin to Today” (1991), on one of science’s “foremost achievements” — the Darwinian theory.
Then there are those unravellers of life’s basic building block — DNA structure discoverers James Watson and Francis Crick.
About the moment of discovery, Crick, in his autobiography “What Mad Pursuit” (1988), says his research partner remembers he went into the pub across the road where they launched daily and told everyone they had discovered the secret of life. “Of that, I have no recollection, but I do recall going home and telling (wife) Odile that we seemed to have made a big discovery. Years later she told me that she hadn’t believed a word of it. ‘You were always coming home and saying things like that,’, she said, ‘so naturally, I thought nothing of it’…”
Watson, after his “The Double Helix” (1968), followed up with “Avoid Boring People” (2007), which has each chapter ending with lessons such as “Never Be The Brightest Person In A Room”, “Avoid Gatherings Of More Two Nobel Prize Winners”, but also “Work On Sundays”, and “Put Lots Of Spin On Balls”.
Switching to the physical world, we cannot ignore possibly the 20th century’s most well-recognised scientist — Albert Einstein. Let’s take his insightful essay, “Religion and Science”, in which he eloquently pleads the case for new, better form of religious experience which will give rise to a new relationship between these two.
After discussing the need-based and the social impulse-based variants which have in common “the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God” and which is only surmounted by “individuals of exceptional endowment”, he comes to a third — “cosmic religious feeling”, which, according to Einstein, “is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research”.
For “only those who realise the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue…”.